5 ms·

This seems like a good rule. Warrants are good. Outlawing using it to ID peaceful protestors is good. While the points about facial recognition misidentifying

by HWR_14 4y ago

This seems like a good rule. Warrants are good. Outlawing using it to ID peaceful protestors is good. While the points about facial recognition misidentifying black people are true, I'd rather it rely only on the civil rights issues associated with it working and not tie it to misidentifying minorities. That's a situation where in 5 years "it works on black people now, kay" is the argument to overturn the law.

colechristensen 4y ago
At this point I’m thinking “Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind” would be a good constitutional amendment. That is, if a reasonable number of humans couldn’t do it, the government can’t do it with computers against its population.
- jrochkind1 4y ago
  how is a machine that does something "a reasonable number of humans couldn't do" "in the likeness of a human mind"?
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    Many AI systems these days are adequate counterfeit humans in ways that adding machines and spreadsheets (and advanced systems that reduce to these things) are not. In other words, computers interpreting things in ways that counterfeit humans or computers generating things that counterfeit humans needs to be banned for government use. I’m not talking about banning the steam shovel but systems where it becomes difficult to determine whether or not a human did it.
- everforward 4y ago
  I think that's probably far too broad. E.g. I don't have a problem with the IRS using computers to calculate how much people owe in taxes based on the info they collect. The number of people it would take to do that manually might be unreasonable. W-2 info has to be to the IRS by Jan 31st, taxes are due April 15th, that's 51 days to generate a couple hundred million tax return numbers. Federal payroll is something else that would probably take an unreasonable number of people to manage manually.
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    In the sci-fi universe being quoted, they used drug-enhanced humans for all calculation after narrowly averting an AI based catastrophe. Honestly, I'm finding it pretty prescient stuff for 1965 myself.
  - ThunderSizzle 4y ago
    If taxes can't be done in paper with basic math, then it's too complicated. Automating it just makes everyone unknowing victims to the tax corruption congress persists in.
    - greggman3 4y ago
      what part of taxes can't be done in paper and basic math? Sure there's possibly 100s or 1000s or tens of 10000s papers to read and basic math to do but haven't personally run into anything other than addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division doing taxes I agree USA taxes are ridiculously over complicated and there's tons of tax corruption
      - ThunderSizzle 4y ago
        You answered it yourself. 100s of pages isn't sensible. 1 page, 5-10 variables, done. Anything more is just congress trying to create retirement plans for themselves via lobbyist and special interests.
  - delecti 4y ago
    > E.g. I don't have a problem with the IRS using computers to calculate how much people owe in taxes Or the census, which was an early adopter of computers (give or take your definition of a computer), because not doing so was taking almost the full 10 years between censuses. https://www.census.gov/history/www/innovations/technology/tabulation_and_processing.html https://www.census.gov/history/www/innovations/technology/ta...
  - danjoredd 4y ago
    Its a quote from Dune. IDK if OP is being serious or not. Basically AI similar to human intelligence has been banned, and hyper-intelligent humans called "Mentats" have largely replaced computers, and help navigate ships through space, as well as complete complex math and probability problems. They are also often used as advisors.
- LeifCarrotson 4y ago
  Define reasonable. In practice, the government defines it based on salary and budget feasiblity, rather than difficulty. I'm not concerned about facial ID getting my face wrong, as in a human couldn't be hired to do the same, I'm concerned about it costing fractions of a penny and the government doing it everywhere all the time. There should be quantitative restrictions on minor rights violations that become major rights violations, even if they're sufficiently minor to be reasonable when done once by a human being in a way that costs the government 10,000 times more than having it done by a computer.
- eunos 4y ago
  In 20xx, aggreagating billion points of data is illegal due to reasonable number of humans couldn’t do it.
- kingkawn 4y ago
  We’ll need Mentats
- danjoredd 4y ago
  Lets figure out how to make mentats and ban robots. That way we can expand the human mind like crazy and see how far we can take our own mental abilities
- halffaday 4y ago
  Get out of my mind, Kwisatz Haderach
eyelidlessness 4y ago
> I'd rather it rely only on the civil rights issues associated with it working and not tie it to misidentifying minorities. I’m trying to to understand your point but I’m struggling to understand whether you understand your point.
- nopenopenopeno 4y ago
  Their point is a good one. If the basis for the legislation is merely the shortcomings of the existing technology, then the legislation will be deemed obsolete once the technology improves.
  - eyelidlessness 4y ago
    That would be a reasonable point if there was compelling evidence that technology at this scale ever overcame these biases. It never does. It’s just an empty promise of fealty to technology and advancement. The reality is that more technology continues to reinforce the same power structures.
    - YeBanKo 4y ago
      This is type of bias is relatively easy to overcome, by probably adding extra layers to the net and improving training data.
    - iinnPP 4y ago
      All the more reason to use reasoning that can't be defeated so easily. You're arguing that the tech will always be discriminatory and the original comment is suggesting a method that would also work positively for what you are arguing. Further, if you want people to get on board, you need to include everyone. When you make it about a specific characteristic of person, you lose support.

by HWR_14 4y ago

colechristensen 4y ago

At this point I’m thinking “Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind” would be a good constitutional amendment. That is, if a reasonable number of humans couldn’t do it, the government can’t do it with computers against its population.

jrochkind1 4y ago
how is a machine that does something "a reasonable number of humans couldn't do" "in the likeness of a human mind"?
- colechristensen 4y ago
  Many AI systems these days are adequate counterfeit humans in ways that adding machines and spreadsheets (and advanced systems that reduce to these things) are not. In other words, computers interpreting things in ways that counterfeit humans or computers generating things that counterfeit humans needs to be banned for government use. I’m not talking about banning the steam shovel but systems where it becomes difficult to determine whether or not a human did it.
everforward 4y ago
I think that's probably far too broad. E.g. I don't have a problem with the IRS using computers to calculate how much people owe in taxes based on the info they collect. The number of people it would take to do that manually might be unreasonable. W-2 info has to be to the IRS by Jan 31st, taxes are due April 15th, that's 51 days to generate a couple hundred million tax return numbers. Federal payroll is something else that would probably take an unreasonable number of people to manage manually.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  In the sci-fi universe being quoted, they used drug-enhanced humans for all calculation after narrowly averting an AI based catastrophe. Honestly, I'm finding it pretty prescient stuff for 1965 myself.
- ThunderSizzle 4y ago
  If taxes can't be done in paper with basic math, then it's too complicated. Automating it just makes everyone unknowing victims to the tax corruption congress persists in.
  - greggman3 4y ago
    what part of taxes can't be done in paper and basic math? Sure there's possibly 100s or 1000s or tens of 10000s papers to read and basic math to do but haven't personally run into anything other than addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division doing taxes I agree USA taxes are ridiculously over complicated and there's tons of tax corruption
    - ThunderSizzle 4y ago
      You answered it yourself. 100s of pages isn't sensible. 1 page, 5-10 variables, done. Anything more is just congress trying to create retirement plans for themselves via lobbyist and special interests.
- delecti 4y ago
  > E.g. I don't have a problem with the IRS using computers to calculate how much people owe in taxes Or the census, which was an early adopter of computers (give or take your definition of a computer), because not doing so was taking almost the full 10 years between censuses. https://www.census.gov/history/www/innovations/technology/tabulation_and_processing.html https://www.census.gov/history/www/innovations/technology/ta...
- danjoredd 4y ago
  Its a quote from Dune. IDK if OP is being serious or not. Basically AI similar to human intelligence has been banned, and hyper-intelligent humans called "Mentats" have largely replaced computers, and help navigate ships through space, as well as complete complex math and probability problems. They are also often used as advisors.
LeifCarrotson 4y ago
Define reasonable. In practice, the government defines it based on salary and budget feasiblity, rather than difficulty. I'm not concerned about facial ID getting my face wrong, as in a human couldn't be hired to do the same, I'm concerned about it costing fractions of a penny and the government doing it everywhere all the time. There should be quantitative restrictions on minor rights violations that become major rights violations, even if they're sufficiently minor to be reasonable when done once by a human being in a way that costs the government 10,000 times more than having it done by a computer.
eunos 4y ago
In 20xx, aggreagating billion points of data is illegal due to reasonable number of humans couldn’t do it.
kingkawn 4y ago
We’ll need Mentats
danjoredd 4y ago
Lets figure out how to make mentats and ban robots. That way we can expand the human mind like crazy and see how far we can take our own mental abilities
halffaday 4y ago
Get out of my mind, Kwisatz Haderach

eyelidlessness 4y ago

> I'd rather it rely only on the civil rights issues associated with it working and not tie it to misidentifying minorities. I’m trying to to understand your point but I’m struggling to understand whether you understand your point.

nopenopenopeno 4y ago
Their point is a good one. If the basis for the legislation is merely the shortcomings of the existing technology, then the legislation will be deemed obsolete once the technology improves.
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  That would be a reasonable point if there was compelling evidence that technology at this scale ever overcame these biases. It never does. It’s just an empty promise of fealty to technology and advancement. The reality is that more technology continues to reinforce the same power structures.
  - YeBanKo 4y ago
    This is type of bias is relatively easy to overcome, by probably adding extra layers to the net and improving training data.
  - iinnPP 4y ago
    All the more reason to use reasoning that can't be defeated so easily. You're arguing that the tech will always be discriminatory and the original comment is suggesting a method that would also work positively for what you are arguing. Further, if you want people to get on board, you need to include everyone. When you make it about a specific characteristic of person, you lose support.